If you're referring to the recent case that's hit the headlines I would say definitely not. Just my opinion, but the daughter had helped them out for thirty years and by all accounts her mum was railroaded into agreeing with her husband on the terms of the will. I know there's two sides to every story, considering she was helping out all those years, I can't think why the hell he would leave it to charity and not to his daughter

Yes Dame AA I was referring to the recent case.  Quite frankly I was appalled they have decided to appeal this court decision.  They are wasting donated money on a case they have lost.  I personally will never donate any money to that chirity ever again.

No one can love animals more than me but im on the daughters side but i hope she gives part of the money to the RSPCA

I agree Dame, I think they should let this one go. As much as I love animals I am a bit confused why anyone would give their entire wealth to an animal charity and not children ones. I wonder if it is a way of showing resentment towards those they leave behind.

I agree with you Smarting and Blue Diamond, it's beyond my comprehension and considering the courts thought it wasn't right they should let it go. I couldn't do that to any of my children if hell had me, and I do think the charity doesn't come out looking that good in this case to be honest.

Ilovewill...the inheritance is their estate and I suppose she would have to sell to give them part share of the farm and to me that seems a little unfair as she's done her bit for the good of animals over thirty years.

Surely any money someone wants to leave can go to whoever they choose? I support a few animal charities and they are just as worthy in my eyes

I think the RSPCA are a brilliant charity and it may be unfair to judge them on one mistake if they do contest the decision.

I hope she doesn't, especially as the RSPCA are appealing. This woman has won this case fair and square.  Technically the RSPCA are entitled to appeal but morally I think they are wrong to do so.

I'm not judging them Low, I think they do a great job. I just think in this instance they're not looking good in the matter, I think they would do well just to let it lie.

Hmmn,Scottish law is different,even if someone specifically states in their will that they do not want a son or daughter to get a penny or wants to gift it all to charity etc,they(Son/daughter) can still claim up to a third of the moveable estate.

I don't think they should appeal unless they qualify for legal aid. Court cases are costly and as they have little enough money as it is to do the good work they do they should save themselves the expense.


I do think you have to question why this woman didn't leave her daughter the money in the first place though.

DAA, do not worry I was not referring to you or anyone in particular I was only putting my opinion forward. Like I do.

I know you too well my friend, I was just explaining what I should have stated in my original answer, that they do a great job

 I should think so sonny jim

Here is a link to the court case, 

http://www.channel4.com/news/a...+will+appeal/3379622

Just read it again, a difficult case for the judge to decide on from the brief details. Conflicting medical evidence is not helpful.

RSPCA are crap tbh, they are failing many more animals than they save, i;ve had many dealings with them and not one case had a good turnout.

to think i wanted to work for them when i was younger too

they have millions stashed away, spend millions on on fad campaigns and advertising, have people in suits earning shedloads, charge the elderly for a sceme where they will take their pet once they die, put down thousands of animals...especially small animals, take money from other charities...and i've not seen much of that money being spent on an animal....

this is just another case of them throwing money away that could actually go to good use...instead of trying to snatch it from a poor woman who gave her life up to help her parents. apparently her dad was abusive and her mum was scared of him...and was quite ill after he died...probably why she didn't change it.

they act like the all knowing god of all animal kind but their welfare for small animals that i have seen in their rescue centres...when a small animal makes it that far! is rubbish. if you want to support an animal charity support a local small charity...who actually do ALOT more good work and dont work on nowhere near as much money!

*rant over*

Darlo, sorry to hear that your dealings didn't go well. 
I still think the RSPCA are needed to prosecute the bad things that happen against animals. If not them, who else will do it.

oh they are needed, it's just a shame that power matters more to them than the animals
they need a reshuffle..majorly

and i'm not darlo LOL

Sorry darthhoob, my eyes are getting tired.

That was the core of the case!  It was questioned, heavily, and it was decided the mother was coerced by the domineering father who died first. Definitely no appeal, in my view.  It would be pretty aggressive.

Personally, after 30 years in animal rights/rescue/rehoming etc I have nothing but contempt for the RSPCA and wouldn't give them a brass farthing - and I don't know anyone else at grass roots level that doesn't feel the same.
I haven't read beyond the headlines of this particular case but for me there is a basic principle here. Is a person entitled to leave their money etc to whatever they choose when they die?
I think that they are, it was the woman's property to dispose of as she wished and if she had wanted her relatives to have it then she would have left it to them.
I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to challenge a persons will unless there is evidence of illegality regarding the drawing up of the will.
As for whether they should appeal - that I don't know. They have enough money in the bank as it is so can well afford to chuck more of it away

Some of us live in that locality Veggie. I have spent time a couple of farms away over the years, and this story has been much discussed. You won't find anyone around these parts saying that the will shouldn't be changed!

The woman was interviewed on TV.  She was careful but you got a hint of what their situation was about.

Like I said Joe I don't know much about the case just have a core feeling that a persons wishes should be respected after their death.
When I make a will I think I should have a reasonable expectation that the way I want to dispose of my estate should be honoured - regardless of anyone crawling out of the woodwork to demand a share of something I worked hard for (talking in general here not specifically about this case of which I know nowt)

I won't support the RSPCA anyway for various reasons, one of them being why should I be trying to make animal's lives better when there are still children in the world without access to clean water?

Anyway, besides the point.  The RSPCA shouldn't be appealing this case.  They have stated they have to because they're a charity but I sincerely doubt that tbh.  They are just grasping.

You win some, you lose some. The RSPCA have, this time, lost. They should put it down to one that wasn't meant to be, and not use anymore of their charity money to appeal.

The little I've read, the woman deserved the estate, and it sounded like her mother had been coerced by an overpowering husband.

Something similar could be said for spending money on, say, bottles of wine or LCD TVs.  Why should I spend money to watch a Sony LCD TV and drink white wine instead of nice clean tap water when there are still children in the world without access to clean water?

Hear, hear!

I suppose they had to challenge it, as it could have been a case of the daughter being undeserving of any inheritance from her parents.

However, it seems quite clear that the father was a bullying twat and the mother had anxiety problems. The daughter had devoted her spare time to looking after the farm, and them, for thirty years.

No, they should not appeal.

Is that the RSPCA or NSPCC?.... But that's another story!

I only saw a brief item on the news about this, and I was baffled as to why they would want to leave their daughter out of the will completely.

both tbh

I think the news said that 1.3 million legal costs had been incurred so far and the farm is worth 2 million. At this rate, there will be nothing left of the estate after any appeal, and if the daughter loses then I assume she faces financial ruin as she would then have to pay the costs.

I suppose by rights they were left the money after all ..... but imo they should leave it as it is ....... who in thier right mind would leave all of thier wealth to the RSPCA when they have living offspring

Something not quite right about that imo .... but what do I know

Indeed Veggie!
However in this case the daughter sacrificed her own promising personal life to go back home, look after her parents, and run the farm.
We know you are now of sound mind Veggie  but imagine if anything happened to you, and your kids, even the one who carried out the Kantine Putsch, discovered that you had left the lot to the Countryside alliance.

True enough But I do give to charity and those don't include any animal charities.

Ah but by doing that the will would be invalid anyway by not complying with the 'I, being of sound mind' opening statement

Anyway I've already told the vegkins that, should I ever forsake my vows of poverty and accumulate vast wealth, I will waste it in a most disgraceful fashion leaving them to foot my care home bills deep into their middle age
And their emigration plans won't save them from that!